dsib-amard-sep15item02
Page 2 of 5
California Department of EducationExecutive Office
SBE-003 (REV. 09/2011)
dsib-amard-sep15item02 / ITEM #07
/ CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
SEPTEMBER 2015 AGENDA
SUBJECT
Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Approval of an Amendment to California’s Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook Related to Attendance Rates for Elementary and Middle Grades in the Title I Accountability System. / ActionInformation
Public Hearing
SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE(S)
Since 2004, the State Board of Education (SBE) has annually approved proposed amendments to California’s Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook (hereafter referred to as the Accountability Workbook) and submitted them to the U.S. Department of Education (ED) pursuant to requirements of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I.
RECOMMENDATION
The California Department of Education (CDE) recommends that the SBE approve one additional amendment to the 2015 Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, which would impact the 2015 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Based on research, the CDE recommends that the SBE set the attendance rate target for elementary and middle grades at 93 percent.
BRIEF HISTORY OF KEY ISSUES
At the January 2015 SBE meeting, SBE members approved seven amendments to the Accountability Workbook that would impact the reporting of the 2015 AYP.
One of the approved amendments was to replace the Academic Performance Index (API) as the additional indicator in making AYP determinations for elementary and middle grades with attendance rates based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA).
The ED requires each school to meet an additional indicator in order to make AYP. High schools are required to meet the four-year cohort graduation rate as the additional indicator and the SBE approved using attendance rates as the additional indicator for elementary and middle grades.
At the May 2015 SBE meeting, CDE staff recommended that the SBE approve an attendance rate target of 90 percent. This recommendation was based on the most frequent target set by other states using attendance rates as an additional indicator for AYP. In response, the SBE requested that CDE staff provide two additional types of information: (1) research supporting the recommended target, and (2) data regarding the impact of the target on local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with elementary and middle grades.
Because the CDE does not collect ADA at the school level, attendance data needed to be collected from LEAs before an analysis could be completed. As of August 12, 2015, the CDE received data for 88 percent of the 7,206 schools that would be required to meet the attendance rate target. Of these schools (6,573), Table 1 below indicates how they would perform on targets ranging from 90 to 97 percent.
Table 1. Number and Percent of California Elementary and Middle Grades Meeting Specified Targets
Target / Number of Schools Meeting Target / Number of Schools Not Meeting the Target / Percent of Schools Meeting the Target≥90% / 6,434 / 139 / 98%
≥91% / 6,413 / 160 / 98%
≥92% / 6,360 / 213 / 97%
≥93% / 6,267 / 306 / 95%
≥94% / 6,084 / 489 / 93%
≥95% / 5,609 / 964 / 85%
≥96% / 4,496 / 2,077 / 68%
≥97% / 2,395 / 4,178 / 36%
Note: Based on 6,573 of Elementary and Middle Schools
The CDE received data for 82 percent of 942 districts that would be required to meet the attendance rate target. Of these (769), Table 2 below indicated how they would perform on the targets ranging from 90 to 97 percent.
Table 2. Number and Percent of California School Districts with Elementary and Middle Grades Meeting Specified Targets
Target / Number of Districts Meeting Target / Number of Districts Not Meeting the Target / Percent of Districts Meeting the Target≥90% / 724 / 45 / 94%
≥91% / 718 / 51 / 93%
≥92% / 712 / 57 / 93%
≥93% / 701 / 68 / 91%
≥94% / 663 / 106 / 86%
≥95% / 608 / 161 / 79%
≥96% / 482 / 287 / 63%
≥97% / 237 / 532 / 31%
Note: Based on 769 School Districts with Elementary and Middle Schools
In response to the SBE’s request for research, the CDE and the California Comprehensive Center at WestEd obtained research on attendance rates and chronic absenteeism. Based on that research, there is wide agreement that students who are absent 10 percent or more of the school year, including excused and unexcused absences, are at greater risk of reading below grade level and dropping out of high school (Ginsburg, Jordan, and Chang, 2014; Balfanz and Byrnes, 2012; Ginsburg and Chudowsky, 2012).
A study in California found that only 17 percent of children chronically absent in both kindergarten and grade one were proficient readers by the end of grade three, as compared to 64 percent of their peers who attended regularly (Bruner, Discher, and Chang, 2011). A Utah study found that students who were chronically absent in any year between grades eight and twelve were more than twice as likely to drop out of high school (Utah Education Policy Center, 2012).
Although there is a correlation between ADA attendance data and chronic absenteeism, three studies indicated that reporting ADA rates can obscure the number of chronically absent students. The California study (Bruner, Discher, and Chang, 2011) found that most schools do not use their ADA data to monitor chronic absenteeism. Schools may assume that 95 percent ADA is an indicator of good attendance, but is not necessarily the case. “For example, even in a school of 200 students with 95 percent average daily attendance, 30 percent (or 60) of the students could be missing nearly a month of school (i.e., chronically absent) over the course of the school year.”
Other key findings of the California study relating to the relationship between ADA and chronic absenteeism found:
• Schools with ADA rates higher than 97 percent rarely have a problem with chronic absenteeism.
• Schools between 93 and 97 percent need to analyze their data further to determine the extent of the problem.
• Schools with ADA rates below 93 percent are more likely to have some high concentrations of absenteeism.
The Utah study indicated that a school with 500 students and a 94 percent ADA could have from zero to 250 chronically absent students, depending on how the absences are distributed (Utah Education Policy Center, 2012). Another study indicated that “A school can have average daily attendance of 90 percent and still have 40 percent of its students chronically absent, because on different days, different students make up the 90 percent.” (Balfanz and Byrnes, 2012).
In summary, the research regarding the impact of chronic absenteeism on student achievement and dropout rates, and its correlation with attendance data suggest that chronic absenteeism would be a good indicator in the new multiple measures accountability system. Although the CDE does not currently collect data that would allow for the calculation of a chronic absenteeism rate, it is developing a plan to collect the necessary attendance data through the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). Based on the current timeline, the data should be available in 2016–17.
Because it was not possible to collect chronic absenteeism data for the 2015 AYP reports, attendance data were recommended as the additional indicator for AYP. If the ESEA is reauthorized this fall, it is possible that 2015 may be the last year the CDE is required to produce the current AYP report for LEAs and schools, limiting the use of attendance data to one year only.
Because the research indicates that schools with an attendance rate below 93 percent are more likely to have high concentrations of absenteeism, the CDE is recommending that the attendance rate target be set at 93 percent for elementary and middle grades. This recommendation aligns with the California research that indicates schools with ADA rates below 93 percent are more likely to have high concentration of absenteeism.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DISCUSSION AND ACTION
The SBE has submitted amendments to California’s Accountability Workbook each year since the initial submission in January 2003. Most amendments have been in response to changes in California’s assessment system or to changes in federal requirements. The most recent changes to the Accountability Workbook include:
· For the 2015 AYP, the SBE and CDE submitted seven amendments: (1) add grade three to pair and share, (2) replace the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program assessments with the Smarter Balanced assessments for grades three through eight, (3) suspend the use of alternate assessments for 2015 AYP determinations, (4) suspend the use of the Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) for reporting and making AYP determinations, (5) revise the definition of the socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) student group to include students that automatically qualify for the Free and Reduced-Price Meals program (foster youth, homeless, and migrant students), (6) replace the grade ten California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) with the grade eleven Smarter Balanced assessment for making AYP determinations, and (7) replace the API as the additional indicator for elementary and middle schools and elementary and unified school districts with the attendance rate.
· For the 2014 AYP, the SBE and CDE submitted two amendments. The first amendment added an extended-year (six-year) cohort graduation rate, and the second amendment removed the API as an additional indicator for high schools.
· For the 2013 AYP, the SBE and CDE submitted a technical amendment in response to the ED requiring a change to the proposed calculation method used for the five-year cohort graduation rate.
· For the 2012 AYP, the SBE and CDE submitted three amendments. The first amendment was in response to a previous Title I Monitoring Visit finding by the ED. As a result, the CDE agreed to produce all LEA accountability report cards and post them on the CDE Web site. The second amendment was a technical change that revised the definition of the SED student group in the Accountability Workbook to align with the definition on the student answer document. A third amendment, approval of a five-year graduation rate, was not approved for 2012 AYP determinations.
FISCAL ANALYSIS (AS APPROPRIATE)
Fiscal impact will be minimal, as the AYP reports are generated by CDE staff and posted on the CDE AYP Web page. All expenses are included in the Analysis, Measurement, and Accountability Reporting Division’s budget.
ATTACHMENT(S)
Attachment 1: References (1 Page)
8/20/2015 12:33 PM
dsib-amard-sep15item02
Page 2 of 5
References
Balfanz R. and Byrnes V. (2012). The Importance of being in School: A Report on Absenteeism in the Nation’s Public Schools. John Hopkins University, Everyone Graduates Center, and Get Schooled. Retrieved from:
http://new.every1graduates.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FINALChronicAbsenteeismReport_May16.pdf
Balfanz R., Herzog L., and Mac Iver D.J. (2007). Preventing Student Disengagement and Keeping Students on the Graduation path in Urban Middle-Grades School: Early Identification and Effective Interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 223–235. Retrieved from:
http://new.every1graduates.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/preventing_student_disengagement.pdf
Bruner C., Discher A., and Chan, H (2011). Chronic Elementary Absenteeism: A Problem Hidden in Plain Sight. A Research Brief from Attendance Works and Child and Family Policy Center. Retrieved from:
http://www.attendanceworks.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ChronicAbsence.pdf
Ginsburg A., Jordan P., and Chang H. (2014). Absences Add Up: How School Attendance Influences Student Success. Attendance Works. Retrieved from:
http://www.attendanceworks.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Absenses-Add-Up_September-3rd-2014.pdf
Ginsburg A. and Chudowsky A. (2012). Time for Learning: An Exploratory Analysis of NAEP Data. The National Assessment Governing Board. Retrieved from:
http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/what-we-do/quarterly-board-meeting-materials/2012-11/time-for-learning-naep-data-analysis.pdf
The Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. (2011). Taking Attendance Seriously: How School Absences Undermine Student and School Performance in New York City.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20110617attendancereport.pdf
Utah Education Policy Center (2012). Research Brief: Chronic Absenteeism. The University of Utah. Retrieved from: http://www.utahdataalliance.org/downloads/ChronicAbsenteeismResearchBrief.pdf
8/20/2015 12:33 PM